High Court
Case Details
CRIMINAL APPEAL (S.J.) NO. 79 OF 2020 (Against the judgment dated 09.12.2019 passed in S.C./S.T. Case No. 1 of 2015 arising out of Complaint Case No. 2416 of 2014 by 1st Addl. Judicial Commissioner,-VII-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST, Ranchi) Pardeshi Toppo …. …. Appellant ----- Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Rajesh Kumar 3. Rakesh Kumar ------- … …. Respondents P R E S E N T HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N. PATHAK -------- For the Appellant For the State For the Resp.Nos. 2 & 3 : Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Satyendra Kumar Singh, Advocate : Ms. Nehala Sharmin, A.P.P. By Court :-. This appeal has been preferred at the instance of victim against the ------ judgment of acquittal dated 09.12.2019 passed in S.C./S.T. Case No. 1 of 2015 arising out of Complaint Case No. 2416 of 2014 by the learned 1st Addl. Judicial Commissioner,-VII-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST, Ranchi, whereby the accused respondent Nos. 2 and 3, who had faced the trial for the offences under Sections 323, 324, 452, 504, 506 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3 (1)(v), 3(1) (x), 3(1) (xi) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, have been acquitted after trial. 2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that the complainant (petitioner herein) lodged Complaint Case No. 2416 of 2014 alleging inter alia that on 11.08.02014 at about 3.30 pm, while she was in her room, the respondent-Rakesh Kumar, who was her neighbor, entered in her room with mala fide intention and caught her. She managed to escape outside of the house, but the respondent-Rakesh Kumar torn her blouse. Thereafter, the complainant started running on the road and then respondent- Rakesh Kumar abused her by saying Coal, Kukur. Meantime, respondent Rajesh Kumar came there and blow a Bhujali on her neck, which resulted in injury on her thumb of left hand, as result of which, she fell down on the road. Respondent Rajesh Kumar blow on her back with stick. They abused her in the name of her caste. Thereafter, several persons came there and she was saved. With the help of Bariatu Police Station, the complainant was referred to Sadar Hospital where 2 she was treated. When her case was not registered by the police, she filed complaint before the Court. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid averments, S.C/S.T. Case No. 01/2015 was registered against the accused-respondents for the offences under Sections 307, 323, 324, 354-B, 452, 504, 506 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (1) (x) and (xi) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The matter was investigated and finally charge sheet was submitted under Sections 323, 324, 354-B 452, 504, 506 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (1) (v) (x) and (xi) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The respondents were charged for these offences to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed false prosecution due to previous enmity. However, the learned trial court after examining the witnesses and considering the admitted facts on record found and held the respondents are not guilty of the charges alleged, as the complainant has failed to prove the charges beyond all reasonable doubts against them. 4.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Court below has committed grave error in acquitting the accused persons. Learned counsel submits that there is sufficient evidence on record to convict the accused. He further submits that the evidences of the witnesses are fully supported and corroborated to each of the witnesses and there is no contradiction therein. However, the learned Court below has acquitted the accused by extending the benefit of doubt, which is contrary to the established principles of law. Learned counsel submits that the prosecution witnesses are not interested and partisan. The Trial Court ought to have considered the fact that the complainant was a poor tribal lady and the ingredients of scheduled caste and scheduled tribe Act are fulfilled in the present case. Hence, the judgment of acquittal requires interference by this Court for the ends of justice. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the accused- respondents submits that there is no illegality or irregularity in acquittal of the respondents for the charges alleged. Learned counsel submits that there is no ingredient to punish the respondents under the provisions of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Act or under the provisions of Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel submits that actually no occurrence took place. Admittedly, due to previous enmity, the complainant has lodged this case with concocted 3 story. Learned counsel further submits that as per allegation, the place of occurrence is inside the room of complainant and thereafter on the road. When the alleged occurrence took place in open road, nobody has turned up in support of the complainant. Even some of the witnesses examined are related with the complainant and some of them are declared to be hostile by the prosecution. Learned counsel submits that there is case and counter case in between the complainant and the respondents much before the alleged occurrence and just to create a further chain of litigation, this type of occurrence has been lodged by the complaint. Therefore, considering the every aspects of the matter, the Court below has acquitted the respondents for the alleged offence, which requires no interference by this Court. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, I find that the prosecution story is based on the evidence of the appellant-Pardesi Topno, who was examined as P.W.5 in this case. In her examination-in-chief, she said that on 11.8.2014 when she was alone in her house, accused Rakesh Kumar entered in her house and caught her with bad intention. However, she managed to escape herself and rushed outside on the road. Accused Rajesh Kumar assaulted with Bhujali by which she sustained injury and accused Rakesh Kumar also assaulted her. As several persons were gathered, the accused persons fled away. She has also stated that with the help of Bariatu Police Station, she went to hospital where she was medically treated. In her cross-examination, she has stated that she do not know Priya Sinha. However, again she has admitted that Priya Sinha has lodged Bariatu P.S. Case No. 324 of 2014 against her and Rajan Kumar son of Gauri Shankar Prasad, Dibya Raj Mishra and Mamta Sinha. She has also stated that both accused are sons of Gauri Shankar Prasad. This witness has also stated that Dibya Raj has also filed a case, being Bariatu P.S. Case No. 325 of 2014 against the Rajesh Kumar and Rakesh Kumar (respondents herein). However, she has denied that she has made any statement in Bariatu P.S. Case No. 325 of 2014. Denial regarding any proceeding pending in between the complainant and accused under Section 107 Cr.P.C. has also been made. She has also stated that she has earlier filed a case under SC/ST Act against the accused. 7. From perusal of the evidence of P.W.5 (appellant herein), it appears that admittedly there is case and counter case in between the parties 4 and this may be a ground for lodging the present case against the accused- respondents. However, the appellant in her cross-examination has denied that any criminal case is pending between the parties. Admittedly, there are several cases in between the parties which were marked as exhibits. Ext-A is the final form submitted in SC/ST Case No. 11 of 2013 dated 20.5.2013. Ext.-B is the copy of FIR of Bariatu P.S. Case No. 425 of 2015 dated 29.9.2015 filed by the complainant-appellant against accused Rakesh Kumar under SC/ST Act. Ext.- C is the formal FIR of Bariatu P.S. Case No. 324 of 2014 dated 11.8.2014. Ext.-D is the formal FIR of Bariatu P.S. Case No. 325 of 2014 dated 11.8.2014 filed by Dibya Raj daughter of Rajan Kumar against both the accused persons (respondents herein). Ext-E is charge-sheet submitted in Bariatu P.S. Case No. 325 of 2014. Ext-F is notice under section 107 Cr.P.C. in between Rajan Kumar, Mamta Sinha, Dibya Raj and Pardeshi Toppo (appellant) and Gauri Shankar Prasad, Rajesh and Rakesh Kumar. Ext.-G is a report of Bariatu Police Station, which shows that there is a property dispute going on in between Rajan Kumar and his father Gauri Shankar Prasad and his brothers Rajesh Kumar and Rakesh Kumar and said Rajan Kumar always used his maid Pardeshi Toppo (appellant) as shield against Gauri Shankar Prasad and his two brothers i.e. the respondents herein. 8. Despite the aforesaid admitted documents, which show that there are case and counter case in between the parties, the complainant has denied the same. As such, the testimony of the complainant-appellant is not trustworthy. Further the evidence of complainant is not corroborated to the evidence of doctor, who has deposed that he has no knowledge whether the complainant has come to hospital along with the police or not. This evidence of the complainant appears to be false, as if the complainant has come with the police, there was no occasion to report the matter by the police to the doctor. P.W. 3 and P.W.4, who are said to be the eyewitnesses of the occurrence, are interested and related with the complainant. P.W. 3 in his deposition has categorically stated that she usually visit the house of the complainant. P.W. 4 has also stated in her evidence that she knew the complainant and accused persons. P.W. 1 and P.W.2 are declared to be hostile by the prosecution. As per the evidence of the complainant, the occurrence took place in the open road and there were several shops at the place of occurrence and due to gathering of 5 the people, she could be saved. However, no independent witness has come forward in support of the prosecution case. 9. Even from perusal of Ext.-G, which is a report of Bariatu Police station, it appears that there is property dispute between Rajan Kumar and his father Gauri Shankar Prasad. The accused are sons of Gauri Shankar Prasad. As per this report, Rajan Kumar always used the complainant, who was a maid of Rajan Kumar against the accused persons (respondents herein) and his father Gauri Shankar Prasad. 10. In view of the discussions made herein-above, the false implication of the accused-respondents cannot be ruled out. The defence has seriously prejudiced due to non-examination of the investigating officer. However, Ext-G which is the police report regarding animosity between the parties has been brought on record, which can easily establish that due to previous enmity, the complainant has lodged this case. In the present case, admittedly two reasonable views are possible on the basis of the evidence on record. In this context, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions held that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case and the one favourable to the accused has been taken by the trial court, it should not be disturbed. One of such judgment is in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. M. Madhusudhan Rao, reported in (2008) 15 SCC 582, wherein Their Lordships in paragraphs-20 and 21 held which are as follows:- “20. There is no embargo on the appellate court to review, reappreciate or reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. Yet, generally, the order of acquittal is not interfered with because the presumption of innocence, which is otherwise available to an accused under the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a court of law, gets further reinforced and strengthened by his acquittal. 21. It is also trite that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case and the one favourable to the accused has been taken by the trial court, it should not be disturbed. Nevertheless, where the approach of the lower court in considering the evidence in the case is vitiated by some manifest illegality or the conclusion recorded by the court below is such which could not have been possibly arrived at by any court acting reasonably and judiciously and is, therefore, liable to the characterised as perverse, then, to prevent miscarriage of justice, the appellate court is obliged to interfere.” 6 11. Off late, the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated the same view in the case of Pradeep Kumar Versus State of Chhattisgarh, reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 239 that in cases where two views are possible while relying on circumstantial evidence, the view favouring the accused must be preferred. 12. The learned trial court, after considering each and every aspect of the matter and also taking into view that in the present case two views are possible and the view favourable which comes to rescue of the accused, has been considered. After discussing the entire evidence of the witnesses, oral as well as documentary, the trial Court finally concluded that the complainant has failed to prove charges against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. The learned trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that no ingredient under the provisions of SC/ST Act has been made out in the present case, so as to convict the accused. I do not find any material on record to disagree with the view taken by the learned trial Court. 13. Having regard to the above stated facts and circumstances, I find that the present appeal has got no merit. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated the 20th of February 2024 N.A.F.R./RC/ R.Kr. (Dr. S. N. Pathak, J.)